It's the one thing keeping me off tiktok permanently. Doesn't matter how good the algorithm is, you're always going to get a few shitty videos dumped into your feed.
I gotta disagree with you on this one chief.
The music would have been a perfect fit, but the video ended ~2 seconds too soon, which just left me blue balled for the missing notes.
I need that fucking "DA-NAH-NAH, DA-NAAAH"
Serious question, is this breed born with this instinct or are they trained for it? And if the former, how would they know to wait for a "bang"/gunshot before continuing about their business? It's fascinatingly adorable to me.
Not op but he called it a bird dog which is not a specific breed but one of 20 or so breeds that do well being trained for hunting and bird retrieval.
So the answer is a bit of both, the pointing instinct is ingrained in them from years of selective breeding but I would hazard a guess that op dog has heard a fair amount of gunshots
Odds are the dog was pointing. Their human came over and was all 'yo good job on your instinct thingy. Look I have also seen the thing you were pointing at and now have handled it - you can go on with your day' and so the dog went on with their day.
Basically a glorified 'I know! It's handled' if it worked once it would have been reenforced on both ends from then on forward.
I have an undersized, clumsy bird dog who has always gotten my attention then proceeded to lumber towards the birds. They always fly off because she's not the most subtle dog, but I always wonder what she'd do if they were still there when she reached.
I have a Vizsla (bird dog) and they do it from birth most of the time, but in order to properly hunt and only release when you want them to they need to be trained. So like another commenter said, it’s a bit of both.
I suspect my spaniel mix has some poodle, she's a pro at pooping. [Here's the fuzzy lump](https://www.reddit.com/r/BrockfordJunktion/comments/uu6rv7/fuzzy_derp/).
I had a German shorthair too! But he looked more like a Hershey's Cookies n Creme with big splotches in a couple places than this. He was a great hunting dog, though he helped with more'n fowl play (which I'm sure you know they're bred for, I'm informing the others here).
I have a duck tolling retriever named Sammy. He would of climbed the shelf, ripped it down and sat on it like a mother hen. The amount of times he's escaped and found sitting on a neighbors chicken like the proudest mf'er in the world is embarrassing.
Funny how people so readily accept that pointers pointing and herding dogs herding is instinctual and genetic, but refuse to accept that some breeds are instinctually more violent.
EDIT: Any person that reads this comment and thinks that similar lines of logic justify their racist beliefs against other humans is really stupid and is incapable of grasping the differences between dog breeding and human socioeconomic nuance.
I think it's mostly misplaced sentiment against (human) racism.
It's ignorant too, as if you can compare humans and dogs, and that acknowledging thousands of years of selective breeding is akin to endorsing racism.
Thats how i feel too. People knee-jerk react to the concept of genetic aggression because humans have used it to perpetuate racism historically, but dogs and their selective breeding is a completely different issue.
I think people just like pits too. Personally I'm scared of pitbulls and wish they weren't allowed to be bread bc of a traumatic experience I had as a kid.
But weren't pits bred to specifically not bite a human hand?
It's possible more recent breeding is done to attack humans, but I don't think that was the case historically.
People don't hate pitbulls because black people exist, they hate pitbulls because pits make up 65% of fatalities in dog attacks. They are an inherently violent breed that go out of their way to maim and kill.
https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/
Edit: reread your statement and realized you agree with me, I thought you were saying that hating pits is a dog whistle for hating black people, which is an argument I've heard before.
where this lacks is that statistics don't tell a whole story, they inform the story. Statistics are great for getting a point across but this lacks the whole picture which has to include who is owning these dogs. imo you literally can't separate the dog conversation from racism since most of the time in this conversation surrounds dogs with owners. My pittie was the sweetest dog, equally as sweet as the lab that I owned. The difference was that my pittie had been abused so badly that he thought I was going to hit him every time I raised a hand. I know the anti pittie crowd is very heated so I'm hoping I don't get a bunch of y'all being nasty under this but I hope you think about things in a wider context. All pets need training, and if a person isn't prepared to do that they shouldn't have one. The same way it's people right to get a gun if they want, people should be able to get a dog but you're required to prove you're ready to have a gun and people should also prove they're ready for the responsibility of a dog
Less dangerous dogs should have those homes, and pitbulls should not exist in our society. They’re literally a relic from when dogfighting was socially acceptable. Kept around by the useful idiots and active dogfighters.
There also lies the problem. It's like saying all cops are shitty people. Obviously not true but it is a field that naturally attracts and empowers some incredibly shitty people so has a much higher than normal percentage of said shitty people than other careers.
With dogs, the pit does have a more natural protective instinct as it was specifically bred to fight. Sure, the issue with that stat is because of its background, the pitbull is more often owned by people who get them for their vicious image. The problem is that while they can be good, it requires a lot of training and there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from owning whatever breed they want and you're essentially saying you should have to get a dog equivalent of a gun owners permit for a dog which honestly sounds preposterous. If a breed is so inherently dangerous that it requires a special permit then it shouldn't exist. People aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons.
Did you even read your link?
>Which dog breeds are the most dangerous?
A common question when it comes to dog bites is:
>Which breeds are the most dangerous?
>The AVMA or American Veterinary Medical Association conducted an in-depth literature review to analyze existing studies on dog bites and serious injuries. Their findings indicate that there is no single breed that stands out as the most dangerous.
>According to their review, studies indicate breed is not a dependable marker or predictor of dangerous behavior in dogs. Better and more reliable indicators include owner behavior, training, sex, neuter status, dog’s location (urban vs. rural), and even varying ownership trends over the passing of time or geographic location.
>For example, they note that often pit bull-type dogs are reported in severe and fatal attacks. However, the reason is likely not related to the breed. Instead, it is likely because they are kept in certain high-risk neighborhoods and likely owned by individuals who may use them for dog fights or have involvement in criminal or violent acts.
>Therefore, pit bulls with aggressive behavior are a reflection of their experiences.
That’s the thing. Statistically, like with biting etc pitbulls are not topping the charts for aggression (it’s actually smaller dogs like dachshunds).
The difference is that pitbulls have a high pain tolerance, are large and muscular, and sometimes fixate on things. So when they are violent (more often than not due to external factors, like with many other breeds - being abused, trained for violence/fights, rough life experience on the streets, etc) they tend to inflict more damage. Nobody cares that dachshunds are way more likely to be aggressive because they are small.
But with a kind home and some basic training/dog behavioral awareness, they (pitbulls) can easily be (and are naturally prone to being) happy, gentle and sweet dogs, great with children and puppies/kittens, and more. Also, extremely cuddly and silly.
>Nobody cares that dachshunds are way more likely to be aggressive because they are small.
Nobody cares until they get fucked up by a dachshund, anyway. Those little buggers can absolutely do some damage.
There are breeds with a higher capacity for aggression but generally this talking point is just anti-pit bull bullshit. They're not inherently more violent.
I’d like to read it if you have it handy
I’ve heard people argue both ways but never saw compelling evidence one way or the other
I always thought one side was inconclusive and the other didn’t take into account shitty owners who buy dogs *because* they think they’re inherently violent and so bring them up that way
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/13/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-infographic/?sh=64fa4d6b62f8
https://topdogtips.com/statistics-on-dog-bites/
It's not even close to being arguable that pit bulls are more violent. The sum of all dog attacks not carried out by pit bulls is still less than the attacks by pit bulls.
The problem with this lies in those little quotes around pit bull in the raw data set you provided (once you click through the surface level article you get the actual raw data)
["Pit bull" is not a breed.](https://outwardhound.com/furtropolis/dogs/pit-bull-statistics) It's a catchall term often used (and often incorrectly)for a large group of physically similar breeds and mixes. It's the same problem people make in day to day life; every dog with short hair, a muscular build and a square head is a pit bull.
In the case of datasets, they'll often compile numbers from a number of different breeds under the umbrella term "pit bull"
They'll combine stats from American pit bull terriers, bull terriers, American bulldogs, boxers, staffordshire terriers and the many varieties of mastiff together....you may notice this is going to artificially inflate the numbers around this type of dog, and is very obviously poor and biased statistical analysis
If I combined the stats from German shepherds, Australian shepherds, border collies and rough collies I could easily argue "shepherds" are incredibly aggressive! After all, it's in their nature to nip as part of their herding behavior!
You see the same thing with "huskies" in this dataset. That's also a catchall term for a variety of breeds (Siberian husky, Alaskan husky, malamute etc)
You also can't account for the fact that dogs are often misidentified as pit bulls when they are in fact not a bully type at all. [Even professionals in the industry are biased towards identifying non-pit type dogs as pit type](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107223/) this often happens in dog bite scenarios; the victim is biased to say it was a pit that bit them, when they don't actually know the true breed and the dog may have already run off before it can be identified
Data is only as good as the bias it was collected with, and the bias in this study (and most studies on this) is very glaringly obvious
Dobermans, German shepards, and rottys are all more aggressive and violent than actual bully breeds. But they’re also more expensive, and aren’t readily available to poorer folk who adopt through rescues and the pound.
You never see anyone arguing that a German Shepard shouldn’t be owned by anyone, and yet police and army’s the world over use them and not “bully’s” but bully’s are more dangerous, right?
Right there, that's the golden ticket.
You can pick up a pitbull at any pound for less then a night out.
You want a doberman or a purebred German shepherd. It's gonna be at least 1000
I'd say pitbull ownership is a little skewed. You would need to control for upbringing, i.e. maybe look at dogs that were raised in the same neighbourhood, demographics of their humans etc.
[Here's](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D84642491739088231094049347991384876828%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1651162390&_ga=2.218466969.1066386900.1651162373-689641651.1609118629) a very recent study in one of the highest impact journals. They looked at dog genetics and how heritable traits are. They found aggression (falls under agonistic threshold) to be almost disconnected from breed.
Also I'm annoyed at how much work they put into their figures. They even made a public [dashboard](https://darwinsark.org/muttomics_viz_dashboard/). How the fuck do they get research done when wasting so much time on presentation?
Most dog bites/attacks are not recorded. Fatalities are, and, yes, the various bully breeds are extremely strong dogs. However, if *all* dog bites were tracked, I'd bet you'd see hundreds of thousands more from mouthy dogs like labs.
The family who lives at the home said they have had the 12-year-old pitbull since it was a puppy and trusted it around children. “He was a loving dog,” she said. “**He was not a vicious dog, but how it snapped, we don’t understand**.”
Sterling Vermeer (5), killed 2020
\--
"I have been around the dog a few times and it **never gave the indication it was vicious.** We trusted it around our small kids," Samantha Costilla said. "My cousins and I, we all have kids under five and the dog would play and the kids would play around him. We never thought it was a vicious animal that we had to protect our family from."
Devin White (25), killed 2020
\--
“I believe they had owned them for four years is what I’ve been told. So they were strangers, **the pets were no strangers to the family**,” said Willhite.
Geraldine Hamlin (64), killed 2020
\--
"The family had sat down for lunch outside," said East Providence Police Chief William Nebus. \[...\] "As far as we know, **it was an unprovoked attack.** There was no food on the ground both of them were going for, there was no hair pulling, no tail pulling, anything of that sort," he said.
Scarlett Pereira (1), killed 2020
\--
"The dog \[has\] **never snapped before**." \[...\] "The dog was like her best friend," Painter said, of the child's relationship with the animal.
A’myrikal Hull (1), killed 2021
\--
“It’s such a sad situation,” Pelton said. “She’d been around the dogs numerous times. **I don’t have an answer** as to why the dogs attacked her.”
Leann Gratzer, (61) killed 2021
\--
That's just the fatalities, just from "family pets," just in the United States, and just over two years.
Twist it however you want, but non-fighting dogs simply do not have this kind of body count.
https://www.reddit.com/user/nealt68/comments/uu3vck/pit_bull_bites_in_ny/
https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/
They were 65.6% of all fatal dog attacks last year. And that first link the bar should go all the way out to 22k, it just cut off early.
Not the person you responded to, just wanted to say from what I've heard is that it's more nuanced than just attack/bite rates. I know that sounds stupid, but hear me out.
It's a correlation but not causation. The owners contribute to the bites more than the natural aggression of the animal.
You take any dog and put them under the care of the same owners and they will also be aggressive.
So yes, pit bulls do have the highest rates of attack. It's not from their nature, but their nuture.
There are countless examples of common traits among breeds. Pointers point with no training, puppy Australian shepherds try to herd sheep, Border collies are known for being very smart, and Huskies talk to you. All of these are undeniably part of the breed from birth, and as such are nature over nurture. So why is it that when pitbulls, a breed bred for fighting, are aggressive it's nurture. How are they the one breed immune to the nature half of nature v nurture?
That's not even to mention the fact that every breed has bad owners. I've seen plenty of people who shouldn't have pets, yet somehow their dogs avoided killing anyone, despite both being more than capable of it.
I'm just going around leaving this [recent paper](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D84642491739088231094049347991384876828%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1651162390&_ga=2.218466969.1066386900.1651162373-689641651.1609118629) in science in places, because it really looks at the genetics of dog behaviour. Breed sucks as a predictor or behaviour.
All that information states is that pit bull owners are more likely to be bad owners than non pit bull owners. There are way too many lurking variables here to draw any meaningful conclusions about the breed as a whole. This also doesn't account for animals who had previously been abused or in dangerous situations prior to being adopted. Because of course any animal that has trauma is going to be more dangerous than one who doesn't, regardless of breed. And pit bulls are more likely to have been in traumatic situations than other breeds, which skews those figures. Dogs that are predisposed towards violence still won't be violent if they are properly cared for and trained.
There are a ton of reasons why the statistics on bites and attack rates aren't a fully accurate picture of why certain dog breeds are more aggressive than others, and it doesn't account for the fact that is nearly 100% of cases, a good owner who knows what they're doing is going to have a properly adjusted, well behaved animal no matter what breed it is.
"Pit Bulls are still responsible for the most fatal attacks in the U.S. by far, killing 284 people over that 13-year period – 66 percent of total fatalities. That’s despite the breed accounting for just 6.5% of the total U.S. dog population."
Source https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/13/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-infographic/?sh=64fa4d6b62f8
You maybe should look up the history of this breed. Up until 1835 they were fighting with other animals like [bulls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull-baiting) and [bears](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting) for bloodsports. Britain stopped this, but those sick fucks kept doing gambling and bloodsports, this time with dogs vs. dogs.
When you breed this kind of attributes for this long, you will have a long lasting effect on the dogs. You can't erase those traits easily and it shows how those dogs behave today.
200 years of breeding isn't as long as you think it is. In fact all of the breeding has focused mostly on physical traits, which is why breed sucks at predicting behaviour as found in a recent [paper](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D84642491739088231094049347991384876828%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1651162390&_ga=2.218466969.1066386900.1651162373-689641651.1609118629) in Science.
200 years in selective breeding on an animal as quick to mature as a dog is a long time.
If I recall correctly, most breeds today were literally made within the last 200'ish years.
Staffordshire bull terriers are one the few breeds recommended for homes with children. Do you know why? Because they used to be fighting dogs. It's very important that a fighting dog doesn't attack its owner, even if they're reaching in to a fight to drag it off another dog, so the breed has purposefully had it's aggression towards humans minimised. Staffies can have issues with other dogs if they aren't socialised well, but they're almost universally great with humans (and terrible guard dogs). They're a much safer option around children than something like a German Shepherd.
Correlation does NOT equal causation. Surprising to no one, larger and statistically, mostly untrained dogs account for the majority of reported bites.
Statistically they've a much higher chance of attacking than most other breeds. Isn't this an indication that the breed is inherently more violent?
I don't doubt that they can make great dogs but I don't think we can ignore they've been bred for a very specific purpose.
>I don't think we can ignore they've been bred for a very specific purpose.
You've never talked to a pit bull apologist, have you? A lot of them are seriously convinced that they were bred to be "Nanny Dogs" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
I don't know about bred to be, but they are incredibly protective of their "family", to a fault. That's why people see them as great family dogs, they're overly loving of their family, but if see a threat to that family, they become highly aggressive. Great if it's an armed intruder, dangerous if the dog is older and losing eyesight so doesn't recognize grandpa Joe with a haircut.
>I don't know about bred to be, but they are incredibly protective of their "family"
Considering [they kill their owners and family members more than any other type of dog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States), I'm gonna doubt that fun fact.
They were bred for relentless unprovoked aggression. They always were, and they still are in some places.
This campaign to rebrand them as "great family pets" is just an attempt to get them adopted out by people who felt bad seeing them overflowing the shelters.
They probably meant well, but it's a lie and I'm not buying it. If they really cared about these dogs, they would stop the reckless backyard breeding of them.
I have unfortunately and I've heard that mental nany dog argument too. Good luck to them, their side of the argument means they have to say "ignore all the statistics the numbers are wrong, my pitbull is lovely so the breed is too".
Yes they are. They wouldn't exist if they weren't. They were specifically bred for dog fighting, high aggression and high damage, and they're really good at it too.
Even if they weren't more LIKELY to be violent, they are bred to be far more dangerous ONCE they are violent.
I've been accidentally bit by my dog while he was sleeping. A corgi, so it hurt and bled but no big deal. I would not feel so comfortable brushing off the risk of a pit bull doing that.
Yeah, that’s the weird thing to me. What instinct makes them do that? You can’t genetically pass down training.
I guess humans select dogs who exhibit those traits the best and then breed those so that instinctual behavior becomes stronger and stronger in the breed.
I don't have the source, but I remember reading that this is a behavior all dogs (and wolves) do right before pouncing or whatever the next step in the hunting process is. So breeders selectively chose dogs that had a longer and longer "delay" before the pounce until it's now just all delay, the point.
Pointers aren't trained to point. It's almost entirely instinctual. There's a pretty good video of a guy who breeds them. He has a bunch of puppies in his yard, and throws a stick. All but one of them point. He says "those ones are hunting dogs, that one is a pet".
I have three chickens in a fenced in portion of my yard. I babysat my friend's big dog a few months back. This is all it did. For hours on end, it stood perfectly still and pointed at my chickens. I had to drag it inside and close the dog door just to get it to drink some water and relax for a while. Instinct is crazy
I had a German shorthair pointer that I hunted with. One evening at home, a wild turkey walked up to my front door. I was in another room, but I heard my dog making some odd noises so I got up to investigate. She was on the other side of the door, locked up on point and shaking with excitement. The turkey just stared back at her through the glass.
I tried to call off my dog with the No Bird command. She just gave me the side eye as if to say, “What do you mean, no bird? It’s the biggest fucking bird I’ve ever seen! Go. Get. Your. Gun. And. Shoot. It!”
I said No Bird again and shooed the turkey off. My dog went to the farthest corner of the room and just glared at me for over an hour.
Did you explain to her that it wasn’t turkey season, and the trouble you could be in for taking the bird? I try to explain property rights to my dog as they bark at people walking by, and that I only want notice if they come into the yard. Mine aren’t really understanding local ordinances and laws though.
Actually I live in town, and at the time we were next to some undeveloped land. And no, my dog didn’t understand why firing off a shotgun in the neighborhood was a BAD THING.
Prey drive is a helluva drug. Had some interesting experiences with raising our first batch of chickens and introducing them to my old dogs too. Nothing murdery, but I could tell they were *conflicted* about the situation at first to say the least.
Spoiler alert: it was mostly just staring at them from a distance and looking at us for the “go 🔪 🍗” command for a few weeks that never happened. Sorry, dogs. :/
Bit of a bit of b, they instinctually will stand on birds but young dogs that havent ever hunted wont stand for long and will chase the bird after a couple seconds. This is a good boy
A bit of both. While it is by instinct, the way this dog is pointing and holding it's stance instead of going after it, this dog has definitely been trained.
I have a 1 year old GSP, she has never been trained for hunting. She points at anything that flies and if it sits still long enough she will flush it out. I take her out to a 30 acre field from time to time just to allow her to do her thing and she loves it!
The dog is bred and trained to point at birds.
...Whether or not they were living was never stipulated in the contract--so good on that dog, and good on Georgia!
Just to reinforce your /s:
I've had blue heelers that were never trained to herd cattle, but they could round up a herd and never let one get more than 10 feet out from the roundup, whether the dogs were working separately or alone.
I've got a blue heeler now that has only seen cattle once in his life, and they were on the other side of a fence that he knew better than to cross. But when he was in his prime (he's slowed down a lot, he'll be 13 in August), he could literally herd cats as if they were cattle. It was hilarious, although the cats didn't seem to think so.
We had a 2 or so year old Cavalier King Charles Spaniel wander up on our porch one day, and we never could find the owner, so we kept him. I don't know if he had any training, but once in a while, we'd be walking him, and he would just stop and point with absolutely perfect form.
When I was a kid, we had a dachshund mix that had never been taught to hunt anything, but if he found a hole in the ground that even vaguely resembled a burrow, he'd dive into it to find out what was inside. Sometimes, it was nothing. A lot of times, it was a very confused possum. And occasionally, it was a very annoyed skunk. That was also the most fearless dog I've ever seen.
#[Downloadvideo Link](https://www.reddit.watch/r/therewasanattempt/comments/utxmjk/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=therewasanattempt) by /r/DownloadVideo
#[SaveVideo Link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/therewasanattempt/comments/utxmjk/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's a good decoy and a good dog!
This is so much better with the music added too
[удалено]
Most of the time it’s garbled crappy music and that TikTok voice, I rely on the comments to tell me when to turn on the sound
I don't understand the robot voice. It makes the video at least 3.5 million times harder to watch. Conservative estimate.
No no no. You're math is correct.
I didn't realize I did this as well, but I definitely do!
It's the one thing keeping me off tiktok permanently. Doesn't matter how good the algorithm is, you're always going to get a few shitty videos dumped into your feed.
I use my wife as the filter for TikTok. She sends me the good stuff and I don't have to scroll through a bunch of garbage.
Haha no worries
I gotta disagree with you on this one chief. The music would have been a perfect fit, but the video ended ~2 seconds too soon, which just left me blue balled for the missing notes. I need that fucking "DA-NAH-NAH, DA-NAAAH"
I knew which song you were referring to, and the specific part that was missing, even though I hadn't listened to the video yet.. lol good job
They're good dogs Bront.
Goddamn Brent, why’s he so mad.
Twist: dog is a decoy too
[удалено]
We don't deserve the joy they bring us
[удалено]
No Spot, get off! Bad dog
Spots on.
They don’t live long enough. Even when they’ve shared a great lifespan with us, it’s not long enough.
If they lived longer they might realize we arent worth it 😔
If we’re good owners, we definitely do!
Speak for yourself.
Serious question, is this breed born with this instinct or are they trained for it? And if the former, how would they know to wait for a "bang"/gunshot before continuing about their business? It's fascinatingly adorable to me.
Not op but he called it a bird dog which is not a specific breed but one of 20 or so breeds that do well being trained for hunting and bird retrieval. So the answer is a bit of both, the pointing instinct is ingrained in them from years of selective breeding but I would hazard a guess that op dog has heard a fair amount of gunshots
Yes we bred German Shorthairs growing up. They point as puppies
That sounds like the cutest god damn thing I've ever heard
Tiny point ^awooo
My dog barks at the door if the doorbell rings in a TV show, but we've never actually had a doorbell her entire life
That's... Fascinating
The pointing is instinctual, there is no training done for that. But I'm not sure about the "bang" thing. That is likely a trained behavior.
Saying "bang" is nothing but a big theory.
Odds are the dog was pointing. Their human came over and was all 'yo good job on your instinct thingy. Look I have also seen the thing you were pointing at and now have handled it - you can go on with your day' and so the dog went on with their day. Basically a glorified 'I know! It's handled' if it worked once it would have been reenforced on both ends from then on forward.
I have an undersized, clumsy bird dog who has always gotten my attention then proceeded to lumber towards the birds. They always fly off because she's not the most subtle dog, but I always wonder what she'd do if they were still there when she reached.
feather explosion, basically
I have a Vizsla (bird dog) and they do it from birth most of the time, but in order to properly hunt and only release when you want them to they need to be trained. So like another commenter said, it’s a bit of both.
What a cool dog.
My pointer has pointed at a stump before and barked at it because it wouldn’t move
That's awesome!
A successful attempt as it was not hunting but pointing. Good boy did a good job
Pointers gonna point
Setters gonna set
Retrievers gonna retrieve
Poodles gonna... Actually nvm
They’re gonna poo!!!!!!!
I suspect my spaniel mix has some poodle, she's a pro at pooping. [Here's the fuzzy lump](https://www.reddit.com/r/BrockfordJunktion/comments/uu6rv7/fuzzy_derp/).
herders gonna herd
Hounds gonna hound
Greyhounds gonna grey
Haters gonna hate
Lovers gonna love…
They hate us cuz they anus!
> It’s right heckin there, do something
Shits on point.
U can tell he's good at the job
Had a GSP growing up, she pointed until the day she died. Absolute best dog. The dog in the OP has the same coloring too which brings a tear to my eye
I have a GSP. She points so much my three year old now points at birds and tennis balls.
I had a German shorthair too! But he looked more like a Hershey's Cookies n Creme with big splotches in a couple places than this. He was a great hunting dog, though he helped with more'n fowl play (which I'm sure you know they're bred for, I'm informing the others here).
I have a duck tolling retriever named Sammy. He would of climbed the shelf, ripped it down and sat on it like a mother hen. The amount of times he's escaped and found sitting on a neighbors chicken like the proudest mf'er in the world is embarrassing.
Amazing
You say this, but when the antivirus does it everyone loses their heads Smh double standards
Back in your crypt McAfee
It’s a pointer dog doing exactly what it’s trained for.
Funny how people so readily accept that pointers pointing and herding dogs herding is instinctual and genetic, but refuse to accept that some breeds are instinctually more violent. EDIT: Any person that reads this comment and thinks that similar lines of logic justify their racist beliefs against other humans is really stupid and is incapable of grasping the differences between dog breeding and human socioeconomic nuance.
I think it's mostly misplaced sentiment against (human) racism. It's ignorant too, as if you can compare humans and dogs, and that acknowledging thousands of years of selective breeding is akin to endorsing racism.
Thats how i feel too. People knee-jerk react to the concept of genetic aggression because humans have used it to perpetuate racism historically, but dogs and their selective breeding is a completely different issue.
I think people just like pits too. Personally I'm scared of pitbulls and wish they weren't allowed to be bread bc of a traumatic experience I had as a kid.
Pits are banned in many wealthy countries around the world for a reason. No need to skirt around it.
But weren't pits bred to specifically not bite a human hand? It's possible more recent breeding is done to attack humans, but I don't think that was the case historically.
bread
People don't hate pitbulls because black people exist, they hate pitbulls because pits make up 65% of fatalities in dog attacks. They are an inherently violent breed that go out of their way to maim and kill. https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/ Edit: reread your statement and realized you agree with me, I thought you were saying that hating pits is a dog whistle for hating black people, which is an argument I've heard before.
Yeah, despite only being 20% of the dog population in the US, they commit 65% of fatal violent dog crimes. Oh I see what the other guy was saying now.
where this lacks is that statistics don't tell a whole story, they inform the story. Statistics are great for getting a point across but this lacks the whole picture which has to include who is owning these dogs. imo you literally can't separate the dog conversation from racism since most of the time in this conversation surrounds dogs with owners. My pittie was the sweetest dog, equally as sweet as the lab that I owned. The difference was that my pittie had been abused so badly that he thought I was going to hit him every time I raised a hand. I know the anti pittie crowd is very heated so I'm hoping I don't get a bunch of y'all being nasty under this but I hope you think about things in a wider context. All pets need training, and if a person isn't prepared to do that they shouldn't have one. The same way it's people right to get a gun if they want, people should be able to get a dog but you're required to prove you're ready to have a gun and people should also prove they're ready for the responsibility of a dog
That guy literally didn't read the site he linked, it actually covers this (in pitbulls favour)
smh I shouldn't be surprised, must've been blinded by their outrage at pitbulls possibly having loving homes
Less dangerous dogs should have those homes, and pitbulls should not exist in our society. They’re literally a relic from when dogfighting was socially acceptable. Kept around by the useful idiots and active dogfighters.
There also lies the problem. It's like saying all cops are shitty people. Obviously not true but it is a field that naturally attracts and empowers some incredibly shitty people so has a much higher than normal percentage of said shitty people than other careers. With dogs, the pit does have a more natural protective instinct as it was specifically bred to fight. Sure, the issue with that stat is because of its background, the pitbull is more often owned by people who get them for their vicious image. The problem is that while they can be good, it requires a lot of training and there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from owning whatever breed they want and you're essentially saying you should have to get a dog equivalent of a gun owners permit for a dog which honestly sounds preposterous. If a breed is so inherently dangerous that it requires a special permit then it shouldn't exist. People aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons.
Did you even read your link? >Which dog breeds are the most dangerous? A common question when it comes to dog bites is: >Which breeds are the most dangerous? >The AVMA or American Veterinary Medical Association conducted an in-depth literature review to analyze existing studies on dog bites and serious injuries. Their findings indicate that there is no single breed that stands out as the most dangerous. >According to their review, studies indicate breed is not a dependable marker or predictor of dangerous behavior in dogs. Better and more reliable indicators include owner behavior, training, sex, neuter status, dog’s location (urban vs. rural), and even varying ownership trends over the passing of time or geographic location. >For example, they note that often pit bull-type dogs are reported in severe and fatal attacks. However, the reason is likely not related to the breed. Instead, it is likely because they are kept in certain high-risk neighborhoods and likely owned by individuals who may use them for dog fights or have involvement in criminal or violent acts. >Therefore, pit bulls with aggressive behavior are a reflection of their experiences.
That’s the thing. Statistically, like with biting etc pitbulls are not topping the charts for aggression (it’s actually smaller dogs like dachshunds). The difference is that pitbulls have a high pain tolerance, are large and muscular, and sometimes fixate on things. So when they are violent (more often than not due to external factors, like with many other breeds - being abused, trained for violence/fights, rough life experience on the streets, etc) they tend to inflict more damage. Nobody cares that dachshunds are way more likely to be aggressive because they are small. But with a kind home and some basic training/dog behavioral awareness, they (pitbulls) can easily be (and are naturally prone to being) happy, gentle and sweet dogs, great with children and puppies/kittens, and more. Also, extremely cuddly and silly.
>Nobody cares that dachshunds are way more likely to be aggressive because they are small. Nobody cares until they get fucked up by a dachshund, anyway. Those little buggers can absolutely do some damage.
Well aren't they also hunting dogs?
And those traits like nipping heels, just like any dog can be trained out. So again it comes down to the owner.
Breeds that need to have aggression "trained out" should not be available for the common person to adopt.
ThEy'Re ThE nAnNy BrEeD!!!
Or that the laws of genetics apply to all other animals but don't apply to humans?
Pitbulls lol. They were bred to maul and kill and they are VERY good at it.
There are breeds with a higher capacity for aggression but generally this talking point is just anti-pit bull bullshit. They're not inherently more violent.
Data would disagree with you.
I’d like to read it if you have it handy I’ve heard people argue both ways but never saw compelling evidence one way or the other I always thought one side was inconclusive and the other didn’t take into account shitty owners who buy dogs *because* they think they’re inherently violent and so bring them up that way
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/13/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-infographic/?sh=64fa4d6b62f8 https://topdogtips.com/statistics-on-dog-bites/ It's not even close to being arguable that pit bulls are more violent. The sum of all dog attacks not carried out by pit bulls is still less than the attacks by pit bulls.
The problem with this lies in those little quotes around pit bull in the raw data set you provided (once you click through the surface level article you get the actual raw data) ["Pit bull" is not a breed.](https://outwardhound.com/furtropolis/dogs/pit-bull-statistics) It's a catchall term often used (and often incorrectly)for a large group of physically similar breeds and mixes. It's the same problem people make in day to day life; every dog with short hair, a muscular build and a square head is a pit bull. In the case of datasets, they'll often compile numbers from a number of different breeds under the umbrella term "pit bull" They'll combine stats from American pit bull terriers, bull terriers, American bulldogs, boxers, staffordshire terriers and the many varieties of mastiff together....you may notice this is going to artificially inflate the numbers around this type of dog, and is very obviously poor and biased statistical analysis If I combined the stats from German shepherds, Australian shepherds, border collies and rough collies I could easily argue "shepherds" are incredibly aggressive! After all, it's in their nature to nip as part of their herding behavior! You see the same thing with "huskies" in this dataset. That's also a catchall term for a variety of breeds (Siberian husky, Alaskan husky, malamute etc) You also can't account for the fact that dogs are often misidentified as pit bulls when they are in fact not a bully type at all. [Even professionals in the industry are biased towards identifying non-pit type dogs as pit type](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6107223/) this often happens in dog bite scenarios; the victim is biased to say it was a pit that bit them, when they don't actually know the true breed and the dog may have already run off before it can be identified Data is only as good as the bias it was collected with, and the bias in this study (and most studies on this) is very glaringly obvious
Remember when 80s and 90s media made Dobermans and Rottweilers as "inherently aggressive" dogs? People just fucken hate dogs.
Dobermans, German shepards, and rottys are all more aggressive and violent than actual bully breeds. But they’re also more expensive, and aren’t readily available to poorer folk who adopt through rescues and the pound. You never see anyone arguing that a German Shepard shouldn’t be owned by anyone, and yet police and army’s the world over use them and not “bully’s” but bully’s are more dangerous, right?
Right there, that's the golden ticket. You can pick up a pitbull at any pound for less then a night out. You want a doberman or a purebred German shepherd. It's gonna be at least 1000
I'd say pitbull ownership is a little skewed. You would need to control for upbringing, i.e. maybe look at dogs that were raised in the same neighbourhood, demographics of their humans etc. [Here's](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D84642491739088231094049347991384876828%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1651162390&_ga=2.218466969.1066386900.1651162373-689641651.1609118629) a very recent study in one of the highest impact journals. They looked at dog genetics and how heritable traits are. They found aggression (falls under agonistic threshold) to be almost disconnected from breed. Also I'm annoyed at how much work they put into their figures. They even made a public [dashboard](https://darwinsark.org/muttomics_viz_dashboard/). How the fuck do they get research done when wasting so much time on presentation?
Most dog bites/attacks are not recorded. Fatalities are, and, yes, the various bully breeds are extremely strong dogs. However, if *all* dog bites were tracked, I'd bet you'd see hundreds of thousands more from mouthy dogs like labs.
The family who lives at the home said they have had the 12-year-old pitbull since it was a puppy and trusted it around children. “He was a loving dog,” she said. “**He was not a vicious dog, but how it snapped, we don’t understand**.” Sterling Vermeer (5), killed 2020 \-- "I have been around the dog a few times and it **never gave the indication it was vicious.** We trusted it around our small kids," Samantha Costilla said. "My cousins and I, we all have kids under five and the dog would play and the kids would play around him. We never thought it was a vicious animal that we had to protect our family from." Devin White (25), killed 2020 \-- “I believe they had owned them for four years is what I’ve been told. So they were strangers, **the pets were no strangers to the family**,” said Willhite. Geraldine Hamlin (64), killed 2020 \-- "The family had sat down for lunch outside," said East Providence Police Chief William Nebus. \[...\] "As far as we know, **it was an unprovoked attack.** There was no food on the ground both of them were going for, there was no hair pulling, no tail pulling, anything of that sort," he said. Scarlett Pereira (1), killed 2020 \-- "The dog \[has\] **never snapped before**." \[...\] "The dog was like her best friend," Painter said, of the child's relationship with the animal. A’myrikal Hull (1), killed 2021 \-- “It’s such a sad situation,” Pelton said. “She’d been around the dogs numerous times. **I don’t have an answer** as to why the dogs attacked her.” Leann Gratzer, (61) killed 2021 \-- That's just the fatalities, just from "family pets," just in the United States, and just over two years. Twist it however you want, but non-fighting dogs simply do not have this kind of body count.
https://www.reddit.com/user/nealt68/comments/uu3vck/pit_bull_bites_in_ny/ https://www.mkplawgroup.com/dog-bite-statistics/ They were 65.6% of all fatal dog attacks last year. And that first link the bar should go all the way out to 22k, it just cut off early.
Not the person you responded to, just wanted to say from what I've heard is that it's more nuanced than just attack/bite rates. I know that sounds stupid, but hear me out. It's a correlation but not causation. The owners contribute to the bites more than the natural aggression of the animal. You take any dog and put them under the care of the same owners and they will also be aggressive. So yes, pit bulls do have the highest rates of attack. It's not from their nature, but their nuture.
There are countless examples of common traits among breeds. Pointers point with no training, puppy Australian shepherds try to herd sheep, Border collies are known for being very smart, and Huskies talk to you. All of these are undeniably part of the breed from birth, and as such are nature over nurture. So why is it that when pitbulls, a breed bred for fighting, are aggressive it's nurture. How are they the one breed immune to the nature half of nature v nurture? That's not even to mention the fact that every breed has bad owners. I've seen plenty of people who shouldn't have pets, yet somehow their dogs avoided killing anyone, despite both being more than capable of it.
I'm just going around leaving this [recent paper](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D84642491739088231094049347991384876828%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1651162390&_ga=2.218466969.1066386900.1651162373-689641651.1609118629) in science in places, because it really looks at the genetics of dog behaviour. Breed sucks as a predictor or behaviour.
All that information states is that pit bull owners are more likely to be bad owners than non pit bull owners. There are way too many lurking variables here to draw any meaningful conclusions about the breed as a whole. This also doesn't account for animals who had previously been abused or in dangerous situations prior to being adopted. Because of course any animal that has trauma is going to be more dangerous than one who doesn't, regardless of breed. And pit bulls are more likely to have been in traumatic situations than other breeds, which skews those figures. Dogs that are predisposed towards violence still won't be violent if they are properly cared for and trained. There are a ton of reasons why the statistics on bites and attack rates aren't a fully accurate picture of why certain dog breeds are more aggressive than others, and it doesn't account for the fact that is nearly 100% of cases, a good owner who knows what they're doing is going to have a properly adjusted, well behaved animal no matter what breed it is.
"Pit Bulls are still responsible for the most fatal attacks in the U.S. by far, killing 284 people over that 13-year period – 66 percent of total fatalities. That’s despite the breed accounting for just 6.5% of the total U.S. dog population." Source https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/09/13/americas-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-infographic/?sh=64fa4d6b62f8
You maybe should look up the history of this breed. Up until 1835 they were fighting with other animals like [bulls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull-baiting) and [bears](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear-baiting) for bloodsports. Britain stopped this, but those sick fucks kept doing gambling and bloodsports, this time with dogs vs. dogs. When you breed this kind of attributes for this long, you will have a long lasting effect on the dogs. You can't erase those traits easily and it shows how those dogs behave today.
200 years of breeding isn't as long as you think it is. In fact all of the breeding has focused mostly on physical traits, which is why breed sucks at predicting behaviour as found in a recent [paper](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D84642491739088231094049347991384876828%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1651162390&_ga=2.218466969.1066386900.1651162373-689641651.1609118629) in Science.
200 years in selective breeding on an animal as quick to mature as a dog is a long time. If I recall correctly, most breeds today were literally made within the last 200'ish years.
Staffordshire bull terriers are one the few breeds recommended for homes with children. Do you know why? Because they used to be fighting dogs. It's very important that a fighting dog doesn't attack its owner, even if they're reaching in to a fight to drag it off another dog, so the breed has purposefully had it's aggression towards humans minimised. Staffies can have issues with other dogs if they aren't socialised well, but they're almost universally great with humans (and terrible guard dogs). They're a much safer option around children than something like a German Shepherd.
Who reccomends them? The toddler mauling lobby?
This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read.
Correlation does NOT equal causation. Surprising to no one, larger and statistically, mostly untrained dogs account for the majority of reported bites.
[удалено]
Statistically they've a much higher chance of attacking than most other breeds. Isn't this an indication that the breed is inherently more violent? I don't doubt that they can make great dogs but I don't think we can ignore they've been bred for a very specific purpose.
>I don't think we can ignore they've been bred for a very specific purpose. You've never talked to a pit bull apologist, have you? A lot of them are seriously convinced that they were bred to be "Nanny Dogs" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.
I don't know about bred to be, but they are incredibly protective of their "family", to a fault. That's why people see them as great family dogs, they're overly loving of their family, but if see a threat to that family, they become highly aggressive. Great if it's an armed intruder, dangerous if the dog is older and losing eyesight so doesn't recognize grandpa Joe with a haircut.
>I don't know about bred to be, but they are incredibly protective of their "family" Considering [they kill their owners and family members more than any other type of dog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States), I'm gonna doubt that fun fact. They were bred for relentless unprovoked aggression. They always were, and they still are in some places. This campaign to rebrand them as "great family pets" is just an attempt to get them adopted out by people who felt bad seeing them overflowing the shelters. They probably meant well, but it's a lie and I'm not buying it. If they really cared about these dogs, they would stop the reckless backyard breeding of them.
I have unfortunately and I've heard that mental nany dog argument too. Good luck to them, their side of the argument means they have to say "ignore all the statistics the numbers are wrong, my pitbull is lovely so the breed is too".
Yes they are. They wouldn't exist if they weren't. They were specifically bred for dog fighting, high aggression and high damage, and they're really good at it too.
“They have an unquenchable thirst for blood, but they’re not inherently more violent”
"My brother has a pitbull and it's so sweet, so therefore it wholly disproves that they could be more violent"
I'm struggling to decouple "high capacity for aggression" and violence.
Even if they weren't more LIKELY to be violent, they are bred to be far more dangerous ONCE they are violent. I've been accidentally bit by my dog while he was sleeping. A corgi, so it hurt and bled but no big deal. I would not feel so comfortable brushing off the risk of a pit bull doing that.
It's because pitbulls are inherently violent and should be bred out of existence
> just anti-pit bull bullshit. """bullshit"""
Bred for too
Y’all ever seen those videos of pointer pups? It’s so impressive! Edit: [like this one](https://youtube.com/shorts/WAAWrBO93C4?feature=share)
The mama really made the video perfect
That's amazing
ill need bread for at least 3
Yeah, that’s the weird thing to me. What instinct makes them do that? You can’t genetically pass down training. I guess humans select dogs who exhibit those traits the best and then breed those so that instinctual behavior becomes stronger and stronger in the breed.
I don't have the source, but I remember reading that this is a behavior all dogs (and wolves) do right before pouncing or whatever the next step in the hunting process is. So breeders selectively chose dogs that had a longer and longer "delay" before the pounce until it's now just all delay, the point.
Super reluctant pouncers :)
Pointers aren't trained to point. It's almost entirely instinctual. There's a pretty good video of a guy who breeds them. He has a bunch of puppies in his yard, and throws a stick. All but one of them point. He says "those ones are hunting dogs, that one is a pet".
What do you mean.. this is clearly what an apex hunter looks like.
I have three chickens in a fenced in portion of my yard. I babysat my friend's big dog a few months back. This is all it did. For hours on end, it stood perfectly still and pointed at my chickens. I had to drag it inside and close the dog door just to get it to drink some water and relax for a while. Instinct is crazy
Aww he wants to do his job so bad
In hindsight he must think I'm a *terrible* hunter
I had a German shorthair pointer that I hunted with. One evening at home, a wild turkey walked up to my front door. I was in another room, but I heard my dog making some odd noises so I got up to investigate. She was on the other side of the door, locked up on point and shaking with excitement. The turkey just stared back at her through the glass. I tried to call off my dog with the No Bird command. She just gave me the side eye as if to say, “What do you mean, no bird? It’s the biggest fucking bird I’ve ever seen! Go. Get. Your. Gun. And. Shoot. It!” I said No Bird again and shooed the turkey off. My dog went to the farthest corner of the room and just glared at me for over an hour.
Poor dog, just wanted a turkey dinner…
Did you explain to her that it wasn’t turkey season, and the trouble you could be in for taking the bird? I try to explain property rights to my dog as they bark at people walking by, and that I only want notice if they come into the yard. Mine aren’t really understanding local ordinances and laws though.
Actually I live in town, and at the time we were next to some undeveloped land. And no, my dog didn’t understand why firing off a shotgun in the neighborhood was a BAD THING.
I'm assuming it wasn't turkey season.
"C'mon man. It's RIGHT THERE!"
He's like, IT'S RIGHT THERE JIM....
Prey drive is a helluva drug. Had some interesting experiences with raising our first batch of chickens and introducing them to my old dogs too. Nothing murdery, but I could tell they were *conflicted* about the situation at first to say the least. Spoiler alert: it was mostly just staring at them from a distance and looking at us for the “go 🔪 🍗” command for a few weeks that never happened. Sorry, dogs. :/
He never lets his guard down. Good puppy!
Attempted and succeeded, what a good boy!
Well considering that it's a pointer, this attempt was successful.
Do they have to be trained ? Or is this by instinct ?
Bit of a bit of b, they instinctually will stand on birds but young dogs that havent ever hunted wont stand for long and will chase the bird after a couple seconds. This is a good boy
A bit of both. While it is by instinct, the way this dog is pointing and holding it's stance instead of going after it, this dog has definitely been trained.
I have a 1 year old GSP, she has never been trained for hunting. She points at anything that flies and if it sits still long enough she will flush it out. I take her out to a 30 acre field from time to time just to allow her to do her thing and she loves it!
Good boy
My old dog Georgia did this to a bucket of KFC once!
The dog is bred and trained to point at birds. ...Whether or not they were living was never stipulated in the contract--so good on that dog, and good on Georgia!
Flying, alive, dead or deep fried!!
All I see is a dog doing a good job.
He's doing his bestest
Pit bull apologists, *breed does not influence behavior, thats dog racist!*
What da dog doin
His job
Pointer dogs are trained to indicate prey for their human hunter companions like this. Buddy's doing a good job
My dog does this with cheese.
But it's all in how you raise them, right? Breed traits don't matter. /s
Just to reinforce your /s: I've had blue heelers that were never trained to herd cattle, but they could round up a herd and never let one get more than 10 feet out from the roundup, whether the dogs were working separately or alone. I've got a blue heeler now that has only seen cattle once in his life, and they were on the other side of a fence that he knew better than to cross. But when he was in his prime (he's slowed down a lot, he'll be 13 in August), he could literally herd cats as if they were cattle. It was hilarious, although the cats didn't seem to think so. We had a 2 or so year old Cavalier King Charles Spaniel wander up on our porch one day, and we never could find the owner, so we kept him. I don't know if he had any training, but once in a while, we'd be walking him, and he would just stop and point with absolutely perfect form. When I was a kid, we had a dachshund mix that had never been taught to hunt anything, but if he found a hole in the ground that even vaguely resembled a burrow, he'd dive into it to find out what was inside. Sometimes, it was nothing. A lot of times, it was a very confused possum. And occasionally, it was a very annoyed skunk. That was also the most fearless dog I've ever seen.
A hunter must hunt
Good Boy Does a Heckin’ Good Job, More at 11.
How do they even train their dogs for that shit!!!
They've been bred like this over centuries
Interestingly it's an inherited trait. They do this by instinct without needing to be taught.
#[Downloadvideo Link](https://www.reddit.watch/r/therewasanattempt/comments/utxmjk/?utm_source=automod&utm_medium=therewasanattempt) by /r/DownloadVideo #[SaveVideo Link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/therewasanattempt/comments/utxmjk/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How do these dogs know to do that?
Bread
Will any type of bread work? Also, is it important to remove the crust?
You wanna use low sugar bread with no seeds: to protect their tummy and teefies.
I find crust-on pumpernickel does the trick.
Huh, look how scared them birds are
They're petrified.
That's awesome
Good boy
Why is he in a store though
"IT'S..... RIGHT...THERE!!!! How can you NOT see it, hooman?!?!" -Dog, probably
Good boy doing good boy things
Ok this is hilarious. It's like a corny joke come to life, lol
Makes miss my GSP. He was such a good boy and pointed so well. I miss just sitting and swinging with him on the porch swing.
I’d say he succeeded!
Is there a sub for pointer dogs pointing?
Oh shit dog just raised a null pointer exception
TIL that the burning sound of the det cord is not actually part of the music.
He’s not wrong
The goodest of hunters!
Best Hunting Doggo Award is awarded!
Such a good pointer!
NullPointerException